Stand Your Ground

[woot]

My bad - I meant to say that I don't believe the Constitution is subject to interpretation. I do, however, believe that amendments can be made to it, such as the 14th Amendment.

If someone doesn't want handguns to be protected by the 2nd Amendment, they take the steps necessary to amend the Constitution to exclude handguns.

Sooo... it is your opinion that suitcase nukes should be perfectly legal since there hasn't been an amendment specifically banning them.

[il Padrino Ute]

Sooo... it is your opinion that suitcase nukes should be perfectly legal since there hasn't been an amendment specifically banning them.

I didn't say that. What I said is that it's not my place to tell people they can't have suitcase nukes. I also said that I wouldn't carry any of those kind of weapons.

[woot]

I didn't say that. What I said is that it's not my place to tell people they can't have suitcase nukes. I also said that I wouldn't carry any of those kind of weapons.

Ok... I'm not sure what you mean by that. You did make the claim that the constitution shouldn't be subject to interpretation and that any restrictions should require a constitutional amendment. Wouldn't that mean that any and all weapons should be available to whoever wants them? Are you thinking over-the-counter? Stop-n-shop tank store? I'm guessing requiring a prescription for Claymores would be an unconstitutional limitation of our 2nd amendment rights.

[il Padrino Ute]

Ok... I'm not sure what you mean by that. You did make the claim that the constitution shouldn't be subject to interpretation and that any restrictions should require a constitutional amendment. Wouldn't that mean that any and all weapons should be available to whoever wants them? Are you thinking over-the-counter? Stop-n-shop tank store? I'm guessing requiring a prescription for Claymores would be an unconstitutional limitation of our 2nd amendment rights.

I'm willing to concede that what I'm saying is that the 2nd Amendment applies to traditional firearms. I'm just not one who cares what others do if it doesn't affect me. I create enough problems for myself, ya know?

[Uncle Ted]

Yet another second amendment debate...

Woo Hoo!!!

[Viking]

Woo Hoo!!!

Now, that is funny!

[cowboy]

It looks like Montana and Alaska have the highest rate (57.7%/57.8% of the households have guns).

Nope. Wyoming with over 59%. Wyoming also has the 6th lowest violent crime rate and 8th lowest murder rate, according to the most recent census bureau statistics.

Cross-referencing that survey with the Census Bureau's violent crime stats is interesting, in that there is really very little correlation between violent crime and prevalent gun ownership. If anything, states with a high percentage of gun-owning households have less violent crime. In the five states with the lowest violent crime rate (.168% average) 41.8% reported keeping firearms in or around their homes. In the fives states with the highest violent crime rate (.669%, not counting DC, which would really skew things) 36% reported keeping firearms. I doubt there is a statistically significant case to be made from these data that gun ownership reduces violent crime, but there is certainly no indication that gun ownership leads to more incidences of violent crime.

Obviously, a gun in the house is different than a concealed carry. People may argue that gun ownership is not that dangerous, but concealed carry out on the street poses a real threat to the public. To analyze this, a comparison of violent crime statistics between states that have vastly different concealed carry laws yields some interesting results. The five states reported to have the highest percentage of concealed carriers have an average violent crime rate of .338% compared to the national average of .439%. States with no restrictions on concealed carry have the following violent crime rates:

Alaska: .633%
Arizona: .423%
Vermont: .135%
Wyoming: .219%
Montana (Outside City Limits): .283%

While gun advocates may be tempted to use this information and the District of Columbia's horrid crime rate argue that guns prevent violent crime, I believe the data from Alaska and Arizona tell a different story. On the other hand, I don't think the anti-gun lobby really has anything to stand on other than than their self-proclaimed common sense.

The thing that strikes me about all of these numbers is that violent crime probably has very little to do with gun ownership either way. Looking at the data, the states with the highest violent crime rates are all states with pockets of desperate poverty and/or alcohol/drug abuse. This leads me to believe that crime is more a function of poverty and addiction than anything else. Perhaps the best protection we can give ourselves is to stay sober and away from people who aren't (sorry, landpoke), and perhaps the thing that should really make Tim shiver in his shoes is a weak economy.

[Omaha 680]

The thing that strikes me about all of these numbers is that violent crime probably has very little to do with gun ownership either way. Looking at the data, the states with the highest violent crime rates are all states with pockets of desperate poverty and/or alcohol/drug abuse. This leads me to believe that crime is more a function of poverty and addiction than anything else. Perhaps the best protection we can give ourselves is to stay sober and away from people who aren't (sorry, landpoke), and perhaps the thing that should really make Tim shiver in his shoes is a weak economy.

I agree that it is difficult to draw correlation between violent crime and gun ownership either way. But if violent crime is merely a function of poverty, how do we explain the higher vioent rates (but lower murder rates) in Europe where there are more generous social safety nets?

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpost.php?p=790172&postcount=102

Also, as the violent crime rate continues to drop in the United States, it is becoming harder and harder to correlate violent crime with poverty, or at least with economic cycles. After peaking in the early 80s, violent crime has been on a steady decline and the decline continued across several significant recessions. 2010 set record lows for violent crime and murder in the United States since the 60s and it was one of the most challenging years economically since WWII.

[Tim]

I agree that it is difficult to draw correlation between violent crime and gun ownership either way. But if violent crime is merely a function of poverty, how do we explain the higher vioent rates (but lower murder rates) in Europe where there are more generous social safety nets?

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpost.php?p=790172&postcount=102

Also, as the violent crime rate continues to drop in the United States, it is becoming harder and harder to correlate violent crime with poverty, or at least with economic cycles. After peaking in the early 80s, violent crime has been on a steady decline and the decline continued across several significant recessions. 2010 set record lows for violent crime and murder in the United States since the 60s and it was one of the most challenging years economically since WWII.

Would literacy rate or education levels across the states show any correlation to decreases in violent crime rates?

[Uncle Ted]

Nope. Wyoming with over 59%. Wyoming also has the 6th lowest violent crime rate and 8th lowest murder rate, according to the most recent census bureau statistics.

Wyoming is a state now? JK. Yep, missed Wyo.

Cross-referencing that survey with the Census Bureau's violent crime stats is interesting, in that there is really very little correlation between violent crime and prevalent gun ownership. If anything, states with a high percentage of gun-owning households have less violent crime. In the five states with the lowest violent crime rate (.168% average) 41.8% reported keeping firearms in or around their homes. In the fives states with the highest violent crime rate (.669%, not counting DC, which would really skew things) 36% reported keeping firearms. I doubt there is a statistically significant case to be made from these data that gun ownership reduces violent crime, but there is certainly no indication that gun ownership leads to more incidences of violent crime.

Obviously, a gun in the house is different than a concealed carry. People may argue that gun ownership is not that dangerous, but concealed carry out on the street poses a real threat to the public. To analyze this, a comparison of violent crime statistics between states that have vastly different concealed carry laws yields some interesting results. The five states reported to have the highest percentage of concealed carriers have an average violent crime rate of .338% compared to the national average of .439%. States with no restrictions on concealed carry have the following violent crime rates:

Alaska: .633%
Arizona: .423%
Vermont: .135%
Wyoming: .219%
Montana (Outside City Limits): .283%

While gun advocates may be tempted to use this information and the District of Columbia's horrid crime rate argue that guns prevent violent crime, I believe the data from Alaska and Arizona tell a different story. On the other hand, I don't think the anti-gun lobby really has anything to stand on other than than their self-proclaimed common sense.

The thing that strikes me about all of these numbers is that violent crime probably has very little to do with gun ownership either way. Looking at the data, the states with the highest violent crime rates are all states with pockets of desperate poverty and/or alcohol/drug abuse. This leads me to believe that crime is more a function of poverty and addiction than anything else. Perhaps the best protection we can give ourselves is to stay sober and away from people who aren't (sorry, landpoke), and perhaps the thing that should really make Tim shiver in his shoes is a weak economy.

Add drug testing as a requirement for getting a CHL and that should help.

[Uncle Ted]

Would literacy rate or education levels across the states show any correlation to decreases in violent crime rates?

Here is a good data set to use (US Census persons 25 or older with a bachelor's degree or higher):

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/ranks/rank19.html

DC rocks the top with a 48.2%, next is Massachusetts.

[FN Phat]

Add drug testing as a requirement for getting a CHL and that should help.

I support this 100%

[cowboy]

Would literacy rate or education levels across the states show any correlation to decreases in violent crime rates?

Here are the simple correlation coefficients between various state demographics and violent crime rates using census and CDC data:

Gun Ownership: -0.271905261
Poverty: 0.337484929
High School Education: -0.341006426
Binge Drinking: -0.020218469
Non-White Population: 0.551449728

A positive number means that the violent crime rate increases as the demographic variable increases. The collinearity of the variables makes it difficult to identify specific drivers, but there certainly appears to be a cultural component to violent crime. In any case, it seems clear that there are no data to substantiate fears of an well-armed society.

[Indy Coug]

Here are the simple correlation coefficients between various state demographics and violent crime rates using census and CDC data:

Gun Ownership: -0.271905261
Poverty: 0.337484929
High School Education: -0.341006426
Binge Drinking: -0.020218469
Non-White Population: 0.551449728

A positive number means that the violent crime rate decreases as the demographic variable increases. The collinearity of the variables makes it difficult to identify specific drivers, but there certainly appears to be a cultural component to violent crime. In any case, it seems clear that there are no data to substantiate fears of an well-armed society.

Now we're getting closer to going in the right direction on this discussion.

[Pelado]

Here are the simple correlation coefficients between various state demographics and violent crime rates using census and CDC data:

Gun Ownership: -0.271905261
Poverty: 0.337484929
High School Education: -0.341006426
Binge Drinking: -0.020218469
Non-White Population: 0.551449728

A positive number means that the violent crime rate increases as the demographic variable increases. The collinearity of the variables makes it difficult to identify specific drivers, but there certainly appears to be a cultural component to violent crime. In any case, it seems clear that there are no data to substantiate fears of an well-armed society.

How many of those violent crimes are generally related to gun use/possession? Would we get any better information if we were to look only at more specific crimes (murder, etc.) that are more likely to involve gun use/possession than the violent crime rate in general?